Myths About the Syrian “Revolution”

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (www.al-akhbar.com).

Al-Akhbar Management

The narrative of the Syrian revolution is an official version of events: All Western media and governments (and all Arab oil and gas media and governments) are expected to strictly adhere to it, and they all do, without dissent. All accounts of the beginning, evolution, and possible conclusion of the Syrian conflict are uniform, as if synchronized by central casting. But one of the most persistent version of events of the Syrian conflict has to do with the birth of the armed rebellion.

In all accounts of the Syrian conflict that one reads in the press and on websites, it is said that the Syrian uprising (or even “revolution”) started peacefully, but that the regime turned it into sectarian armed conflict. This official notion is repeated so many times in statements by US officials and in editorials and columns that no one bothers to question. One is expected to accept it – in the form of theological dogmas – without asking questions and without raising doubts. Just like in religious belief, raising doubt can get one to be censured or rebuked or even accused of Tashbih tendencies.

But was that really what happened. I, of one, signed a petition along with a few comrades of mine in Lebanon early after the beginning of the Syrian uprising, and we denounced the brutality of the regime and we mocked the version of events being peddled by the regime: We dismissed the notion that there were armed gangs roaming the country and shooting at people. In hindsight, I was wrong and the regime that has a history of lies and fabrication (although the Free Syrian Army’s record of lies and fabrication easily topped that of the Syrian regime) may not have been inventing stories of armed groups early in the history of the Syrian conflict.

The New York Times and other Western media even invented the story that the uprising was actually secular, but that the regime (through blatant sectarian discourse, according to accounts by Beirut bureau chief of the Times, Anne Barnard, although the paper later had to print a correction to account for the lie of Ms. Barnard) incited sectarianism in society including in speeches by Bashar himself who referred to his enemies (according to Ms. Barnard and others) as “Sunni terrorists.” But if we are to interrogate this claim (and this claim does not in any way change the fact that the regime has a sectarian basis of support and that Hafez al-Asad built his regime on the basis of minority Alawite loyalty), does that mean that all those sectarian bands and gangs in Syria were formerly secular, but turned to Salafi and other forms of hate groups by a speech or two by Bashar?

But let us go back to the story of violence and how the conflict turned violent. In the beginning of the Syrian conflict, there were acts of violence going on. The notion of a peaceful, pacifist Arab “spring” appears to be the invention of PR firms hired by the US government or wishful thinking of Western journalists, or both. Or this story of Gene Sharp (remember him, anyone?) as the real instigator of the Arab “spring,” which was quite influential in The New York Times among other Western media, now it is mocked rather than believed.

The Free Syrian Army was declared as an armed defense group (just as the Israeli terrorist, colonizing and occupying army is a “defense force”) which only serves to protect unarmed demonstrators. But the Free Syrian Army never seems to have performed that role. And what about the accounts of early shooting and bombings, which were registered in Syria long before the formation of various bands and brigades in Syria?

Given the heavy hand of outside intervention in Syria (especially, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel), it is far more likely that there were many sleeper armed cells all over Syria and that those external powers gave the orders to start once the momentum of the popular uprising began.

This is not in any way to cast doubt on the motives of the thousands of civilian demonstrators who took spontaneously to the streets all over Syria to protest against a repressive and corrupt regime. The Syrian people have a million reasons to want to rid themselves of the regime (although a substantial section of the Syrian population – and that section may have grown thanks to the misdeeds and thuggery of the armed groups – remain loyal to the regime for a variety of reasons) and many hoped to cause change in Syria peacefully. Those were the folks who were chanting: peaceful, peaceful. But it is not clear that those same people who chanted “peaceful” later turned to guns and immediately found various weapons at their disposal, and then quickly espoused violent ideologies. Most likely, the people who turned to arms are not necessarily the same people who took peacefully to the streets.

There was a violent plan for Syria long before the Syrian uprising began. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel all had their favorites and their agents inside Syria and were ready to strike. It is to be remembered that all three states have a heavy presence in Lebanon and would have had an easy time (especially through the sinister Intelligence branch of Lebanon, which answers to Saudi and American intelligence services) to fund and smuggle fighters into Syria.

No, the Syrian uprising did not start peacefully and then suddenly degenerate into one of the most violent and vicious and sectarian conflicts. It is demeaning to the Syrian people and to the motives of the early demonstrators to believe that. There was an armed rebellion or movement that started very early on and which ran parallel, or in opposition to the peaceful protest movement. The armed rebellion basically gradually and steadily hijacked the Syrian uprising and diverted it according to the wishes of foreign intelligence services. This scenario is more plausible than the fictional story peddled, almost word for word, in all Western media accounts.

Comments

of all the embarrassment, and damage to the US by Pres Obama, nothing is worse than his betrayal of the Syrian revolution. In this small space, I offer my personal apology to Syrian revolutionaries.
As'ad's sole purpose here seems to be to discredit that revolution as an Israeli, US. Gulfie. enterprise against his beloved " Resistance Axis " that states.
Not to worrry, As'ad, the big winner is the IRI, thanks to BHO

The fan of the most dumb prez in USA history (no mean feat) is offering personal apology to Al-Qaida in Syria LOL. On the other hand, it is a good sign if the fan of the most dumb prez in USA history (no mean feat) is unhappy because Obama is not going to bomb Syria just now and turn it into one more Libya or Afghanistan (in both cases USA, no matter the prez was creating or using Al-Qaida as their proxies, i.e. revos) It is very nice of the fan of the most dumb prez in USA history (no mean feat) to care so much about Syrians, esp because the fan of the most dumb prez in USA history (no mean feat) is a Zionist and 100% supports crimes of Zionists against Syria and others.
Of course, the fan of the most dumb prez in USA history (no mean feat) could only whine about As'ad being unfair to USA favorite Al-Qaida in Syria and its masters. It would be funny but the number of victims of such USA politics of terrorism creation all over the world.

Asad always seems to have the need to tirelessly infuse criticisms of the syrian regime when criticizing the rebels and armed thugs of syria. I understand the need to be diplomatic and we all understand the draconian nature of the syrian dictatorship but you should just get used to calling a spade for what it is....no need to be frightened.

Well done, As'ad. It takes a brave man to admit publicly that he was wrong on such a fundamental issue as this. But of course this admission will hang like the proverbial albatross around your neck if you ever again make such judgments as you originally did on Syria.

Nobody is infallible or permanently immune to professionally-executed propaganda and it will surely hang lighter than on those who, for their political purposes, stubbornly continue to ignore the evidence of the past errors which got them there in the first place.

It's a bit like a miniscule inversion of your pet notions on Sept.11 and AQ being US operations, for which there has been neither evidence nor atonement as yet ... in 12 years.

Can I recommend the humble albatross, Sir? It's our most popular dish!

This scenario is more plausible than the fictional story peddled, almost word for word, in all Western media accounts.

Straightening Machine

An acquaintance of mine who worked in Syria says that foreign (i.e. Saudi) money was involved in the uprising from the very start and that organized violence was involved already in the early demonstrations at Deraa. A colleague of her's from there who initially supported the revolt but who has since become an Assad supporter reported to her that "protesters" were paid to go out in the streets and that people who resisted the call were threatened in their homes by armed men. This is hearsay, admittedly, but it rings true given who events have proceeded since then and it supports the suppositions in this piece. I also recall reports of heavy casualties among Syrian army personnel from very early in the conflict, during the so-called "civil" rebellion.

Thank you good sir.

So true.

I remember when Gaddafi gave his speech and talked of al qaeda and how I laughed at his words thinking he was mad - but I was wrong and he was right.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top